Applied behavior analysis professionals have valuable expertise to share with parents of individuals with disabilities. Unfortunately, professionals also tend to talk like professionals, which means they use technical terminology that may be detrimental to productive relationships with stakeholders. Several studies have documented that laypersons can react adversely when hearing technical terms (e.g., Critchfield et al. (2017), in Behav Anal Pract 10(2), 97-106; Rolider & Axelrod (2005), in Heward, Heron, Neef, Peterson, Sainato, Cartedge,…Dardig (Eds.), Focus on behavior analysis in education: Achievement, challenges, and opportunities (pp. 283-294), Pearson Education), suggesting that such terms could disrupt the dissemination of behavioral expertise from professional to stakeholder. The present study evaluated the effect of technical terms embedded into parent training. Seventeen parents of individuals with disabilities were taught to implement discrete trial teaching via individualized instructions containing high or low percentages of jargon. Jargon was individually determined for each participant based on a pre-evaluation. Parents who encountered more jargon benefitted significantly less from the training, and social validity data suggested that jargon damaged the professional-stakeholder relationship in several ways. These findings support the idea that technical terminology has a deleterious effect on the dissemination of evidence-based practices. We suggest some directions for future research to better explore such effects and to identify methods for diminishing the adverse impacts of jargon.